Sola Scriptora

King James Version, simply becasue it is a superb translation of the right Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, while the new versions are based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts no one usedin church history. I refer to other versions as helps and commentaries, knowing they are fallable. But I have God's infallable Word and can show it to you.

You "have heard" the Church of Christ DENOMINATION is the true church??? Yes, THEY make that claim, as do Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the vatican, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc etc. So what??? Judge these claims by the Word of God.

A Video showing Hinn, Steve Brock and others smoking a long pipe? And it is them for sure??? Please!

Well the problem is that the Old Testament teaches us, as it did the jews of that time to call on His name, Praise His name, and exalt His name. So, this tradition is nonsense. Besides the New testament NEVER DOES THIS. The Words for Lord and God are spelled out every time, as are every qoute from the Old Testament where the word Lord or God appears. None of the inspired writers cared to hyphenate Lord or God when qouting the Old Testament, even though they knew many Jews would be reading their writings. I say dispense with these unBiblical traditions, as the Bible teaches us to.

That's assuming the the typical anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Christan, leftwing, sociliast, lying, liberal, press actually told the truth and didn't lie and fabricate things. You know, like Dan Rather and his "unimpeachable" sources that "proved" President Bush was a bad guy???

I expect you to run away, after making sure you tell lies and slander me. You are the false teacher. All religious hypocrites are exactly what they falsely accuse others of being. You cannot properly exegete this passage. It is clear you don't know how to exegete a passage. You simply superimpose you ideas onto a text. Hence you are guilty of wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction, just as Peter warned people like you, who trust in water rather than the blood of Christ. Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Here is a plain reference to you, who is hard of hearing, on exactly HOW Noah was saved---by FAITH. And because he believed what God said he built an ark "to the SAVING OF HIS HOUSE" Now how was Noah saved??? By water??? Or throught faith??? Now then Hubert, here you have a LITERAL EXPLANATION of what saved Noah and His house--faith, and works which goes with them-James 2. Genesis: 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And here we have it--it was GRACE hubert, something you apparently know nothing about, because you believe you are saved by works. That hateful, lying, judaizer spirit that animates self-righteous men who think they can do works to add to Calvary's work to save themselves. Dunk yourself 100 times you can't save yourself hubert. And lastly, so that you may know, not what saved Noah, but WHO saved him, Peter tells us: 2Peter: 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; Now then Hubert, go ahead and run away. You have lost this debate. Peter told us that God saved Noah. And this was because he found grace in the sight of God. He had faith in God, and that faith pleased God and God gave him the plan on how to be saved from the destruction of the flood. You don't believe the Bible, while hollering loudly that you do, and to let God be true, and every man a liar. Look in the mirror, you will find yourself there. Check-mate. I take it you believe everything in Revelation literally? To be consistent you must. Your commentary on that book would be a hoot to read.

Lets try second-grade English with you again. Peter said Noah was "saved by water" FIGURATIVLEY!!! Hello out there! That means NOT LITERALLY. That means by way of analogy Noah was saved by water. So to say Noah was saved by water is a figure of speech, not a literal truth. A child can comprehend this, but not you! In the same way Peter says EVEN BAPTISM--get that...even baptism saves, clearly showing he is making the same point---a stretch! When he says in a like figure where even baptism---do you not hear the tone??? we can even say that baptism "saves us". Peter's whole way of saying it shows he is being figurative. Baptism saves us the exact same way the flood waters saved Noah. Since Noah's flood didn't literally saved anyone, but actually killed millions of people, and since it was actually God saving Noah via an ark, through grace-Gen 5:5, anyone who will compare Scripture with Scripture and be RESPONSIBLE knows what Peter was saying. Baptism is a "figure" of our salvation just like the flood waters were a figure of Noah's. Neither was actual, but a shadow of the real thing. The exegesis you guys throw up is on the same level as the guys who showed someone the Scripture that says "Judas went and hanged himself", and then turned to another Scripture that said "Now go and do likewise". Great!

Hubert, if you g back and re-read, you will see someone DID say Noah wasn't saved by water. He was, in a figurative way. And, we are saved by baptism in the same figurative way, just like we will be saved "by fire". You can say whatever you like, and twist my words, but it is because YOU are not writing by the Spirit of God. Ye are Judaizers. Anyone can see what I meant--that Peter did in fact say eight souls were saved by water, which some of you deny, because you know Peter was speaking figuratively, and if you admit that, thenmaybe ithe baptism reference is figurative also. But you at least are taking these figurative statements literally, unlike your buddies, and do so at your own peril. I take it you believe in transubstantation also? Do you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood? His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood drink indeed--John 6:53-56. Well?

Nonsense, we owe nothing to Rome there Foggy, except that they produced confused and embittered people like you who saw the evil and hypocrisy, and wrongly concluded Christianity must not be true, look at its adherents! You are looking at the wrong group--this one we were warned about in the Bible--Rev 17. As for burning witches--you guys forget something. The pilgrim fathers founded a nation and made laws. They forbade witchcraft as well as kidnapping, stealing etc. If someone wanted to live in this new nation, its understood they had to obey the laws of the land. Witchcraft was against the law and a capital offense. To our pilgrim fathers, this behavior was an affront to God and would bring His displeasure upon the nation. If the witches didn't like it, they just could have left. Don't blame the pilgrims for following through with their laws. The Catholic cult on the other hand, persecutes anyone who doesn't agree with her. The pilgrim fathers founded a nation and set the laws. This is different. For you to be consistent, you would ALSO have to condemn them for punishing thieves, perjurers, murderers, etc. They had the right to establish this nation any way they wanted. Witches were not welcome. They took their chances, and paid the price for defying the civil government they lived in.

Boy you guys are thick! All cranium, no space in between for a brain??? That's how you talk. Now if the above qoute isn't exactly "argument ad naseum" and constant "reassertion", I don't know what is! That's all you can say--unproven assertions, over and over and over. You are arguing wth Peter there my boys, because he said: 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Now then, who said Noah WASN'T saved by water??? Why its you guys. Yet there it is in black and white--eight souls 'WERE SAVED BY WATER". Period. And then Peter tells us that in the same way Noah was saved by the waters of the flood, so we to, in a "figure" are saved by the waters of baptism. Guess what, and eigth grade education in English is all that is required to simply BELIEVE what peter said! You guys are so samrt, you can't accept plain English! Now once and for all-- Peter said eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. That is a fact only the most hardened of religious hypocrites would deny He then says that in the same way we are saved by the waters of Baptism, in a like FIGURE--FIGURATIVELY, not literally. Look at the language! Now were the eigth souls actually saved by the flood waters? Literally NO WAY. In a figurative way they were. In the SAME WAY even baptism "saves us". If you want to take that literally, you must take what peter said about the flood waters saving the eight also. Be consistent, or be quiet. You cannot play games with the Word of God like this. Both statements by peter are figurative, and analogous. In the same way Paul said we would be "saved, as by fire". Common sense and honesty forbids the water-dogs misinterpretation of the passage in Peter

I don't know what perversion you are qouting, but lets stick withthe KJV, shall we? It says Noah was saved by the waters of the flood. Period. In a "sense" he was. Those waters symbolized his death to the world, and the world was dead to him. In the same way, baptism "saves" us. it symbolizes our death to this world, and us being dead to the world. I am afraid that English was my best subject at school there Hubert, and you need to know that no amount out out-of-context twisting of those three verses by you can ever change what is truly says, by rules of grammar, analogy, and the over-all Scirptureal context. You can believe that baptism washes yoursins away, but we know its the blood of Christ that washes our sins away the moment we believe and confess Christ.

Fog: The "church" said no such thing. The Roman Catholic Cult said those things, not real Christians. The BIBLE TOLD US 2700 years ago that the world was ROUND--A CIRCLE. So the poor persecuting dupes at the Vatican were wrong, that's all. Get your facts, or the lack thereof, straight.

I'm sorry my UPC friends, but your arguments and reactions to my posts are ridiculous. I am not being deceitful, nor engaging in strawman argumentation. You are simply bound by that circular reasoning you were taught at UPC churches. And round and round we go! It is amazing to watch people simply refuse logic or honesty when it is pointed out that CONTEXTUALLY, their PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of a phrase is false. It is sad to see people REBEL against the light that is shown to them simply because they come to the Scriptures with an a priori assumption. I gave you two longer posts that exegetically EXPLAINED our position. None of you have tried to interact with those posts. I say because you cannot. Evidence was provided PROVING Peter was speaking FIGURATIVELY about baptism saving us, just as he said the WATERS SAVED NOAH. The whole REASON Peter brought up baptism was BECAUSE he just mentioned the flood waters in Noah's time and then said, (since Baptism involves water!!)--he said we can view baptism as saving us in a like "figure". Then he goes further to state that baptism DOES NOT WASH AWAY MORAL FILTH, but it is an act that is an answer of an already good conscience to God. Peter WAS SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, and used the word "figure" RIGHT THERE IN THE CONTEXT!!! HE SAID THAT IN RELAYING BAPTISM TO THE EXPERIENCE OF NOAH, WE ARE "SAVED" IN A LIKE FIGURE. It is OBVIOUS that he was using the word "saves" in a figurative manner. Peter SAID HE WAS RIGHT THERE! You are in denial, plain and simple, then you turn and attack me. I BELIEVE WHAT PETER SAID, you don't. You TWIST what he said, that much is very obvious. If you believe baptism saves--FINE. Just ADMIT that you don't find that teaching in 1Peter 3:19-21. Just concede that point and prove your doctrine elsewhere. What's wrong with that? What wrong with HONESTY boys and girls???

No sir, my UPC frineds. No one denied that the Bible teaches "baptism saves" simply because the Bible DOES NOT TEACH IT. An honest person would have read the context, and saw Peter was making an allusion to Noah's Flood, and how IT saved him, as a matter of speaking. And then in the same way he said even baptism was a like fugure that "saved us". 1- Now if you are such Bible BELIEVERS, tell me, are we "saved by Fire" like Paul said literally like you interpret Peter saying we are saved by water??? 2- Was Noah saved by the DROWNING WATERS OF THE FLOOD? Did those waters LITERALLY save him? 3- Oh yes, and while we're at it, do we REALLY, literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink His blood to have eternal life? He said so plainly in John 6:53-57! Do you believe in that also, literally? 4- Was Jesus a literal door with hinges?-John 10? 5- Does he offer us literal water to drink?-John 4, and 7??? Answers please. Your answers will go a long way to showing who really believes the Bible and interprets it properly.

Lots of books and lots of errors, apparent and subtil will require hours to fully expose there serrotta. Surely it took you HOURS tom aqauint yourself with,let alone learn to refute cults like Jehovah's Witnesses?